15 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
So you thought you knew all about vampires..., January 19, 2007
Well, think again! In this amazing, weird, genre-bending and -blending, different-from-any-other-book-you're-likely-to-read novel, you'll get to know a particularly nasty specimen. Forget the teeth - this vampire uses a saw and a bucket. But FANG LAND isn't only a smart and frankly terrifying retelling of Bram Stoker's classic (which it is indebted to on a structural level, too); Marks uses the foil of the vampire novel to say some pretty serious things about why our media suck. (Excuse the pun.) And he does so with a satirical edge that is all the sharper because he used to be a producer for 60 Minutes himself. A great read and more profound than you'd think. The cover is spectacular, too.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Dracula updated!, May 18, 2007
Fangland can basically be described as an updated Dracula. In fact the main character, a young woman is named Evangeline Harker, just like Stoker's classic Jonathan Harker. There are even a few names that are re-used as well. Evangeline is a reporter for a TV show called the Hour. She is sent to Romania to interview a possible crime lord named Ion Torgu, who presumes the role of Dracula. Although it is never said if he is truly a vampire, he is something else that is not of this world however.
Similar to Stoker's tale, Evangeline remains too long on her trip and doesn't return at the appointed time, but for some reason someone is taking over Evangeline's life and sending emails in her name and shipping strange crates back to the office. Evangeline loses her memory of the duration of the trip and when she returns home her memories slowly return to her and the terror of them drives her insane. A horror has taken over the people of the Hour and Evangeline must do all that she can to defeat the monster.
Overall a very good book. If you've read Stoker's classic Dracula you'll love this modern new twist. As mentioned before there are a few names that are similar if I'm remembering correctly. A must read for all Dracula fans, you won't be disappointed.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Thoroughly "meh.", January 11, 2009
As a huge fan of the Stoker original, the premise of the novel intrigued me -- an updated "Dracula" story? Excellent! Gender-flipping the Harker character into a female lead? Great! Lots of high reviews on Amazon and other places? Clearly this must be the Holy Grail of vampire novels!
Sadly, not so.
The first half of the novel starts out well enough-- where Marks stays true to the Stoker original without being a complete carbon-copy. The modern adaptation concept worked really, really well. Marks updates the old epistolary format, popular in the 18th and 19th centuries using therapy journals and e-mail, and it's all really engaging.
Unfortunately, it all falls apart halfway through. For one, by avoiding all of the trappings of the vampire mythology, Torgu seems less and less like a vampire. In fact, by the end of the novel, I wasn't entirely convinced that Torgu WAS a vampire (in fact, when he DOES in fact drink blood, it seems like a total nonsequitur -- he collects it in a bucket after slashing the victim's throat, and then proceeds to cup it in his hands and drink it). He's essentially described as human suffering made manifest, and there is a distinct emphasis ON human suffering and the dead, but its significance never really clicks with the rest of the book.
The main character, Evangeline Harker, is completely unsympathetic -- we're never sure what kind of person Marks wants her to be, and eventually her behavior is nothing short of pointlessly erratic -- not a trait you want a protagonist to have.
For that matter, the cast of characters is far too large, and it not only becomes difficult to keep track of them all, it becomes impossible to care about any of them. (Besides that, most of them aren't likeable in the least, which makes it doubly difficult to give half a damn about them.)
The POV changes that some of the other reviewers complained about is consistent with Stoker's original, but what Marks fails to do with this tapestry of correspondance is make all the pieces fit together to create a coherent whole. Stoker's novel, while flawed in its own way, consisted of newspaper clippings, journal entries, and letters, that all fit together, like a mosaic, and when you stepped back, as a reader, you saw how the pieces fit and what kind of picture it made. Marks pays homage to the format without fully understanding it, it seems, and so it all falls horribly flat.
And as a personal pet-peeve: people simply do *not* talk the way Marks portrays, I don't care how worldly and well-educated they are. The dialogue is at times painful, and the winding monologues are best skipped over entirely.
In short? I wouldn't recommend it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No